Malazan Wiki talk:Dramatis Personae
Appearance Templates Since we are using the ((Mo)) (would insert but the website crashes every time I try to) template for the first reference to a character, should I go through all the DPs and swap full appearance for the first appearance template or create a "full appearance" template in the same style? It looks kind of strange to have the "mentioned only) in the smaller font and the "full appearance" in normal. Marl Karx (talk) 16:36, December 15, 2016 (UTC) :Not sure I understand your question, Marl. You only use the Mo template when a character is talked about (i.e. mentioned) but the character itself is off stage. If the first appearance is a full one, i.e. the character is present, than there is no need for a Mo ref at all. If what you mean is that you want to replace the old Mo with the new Mo elsewhere, sure, go ahead :) :The differences between the look of Mo and full appearance makes a visual distinction between the minor and the major appearances of the characters so I quite like it :) :As you are about at the moment - have you had a look yet at the DL and FoL worksheets? Didn't you want to earmark some characters, chapters etc...? :Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 21:31, December 15, 2016 (UTC) ::I was referring to the second part of a character mentioned only, after the citation for their mention there is a (full appearance) in normal text, ex.: ::*Anomander Rake, Lord of Moon's Spawn, Son of Darkness, Knight of Darkness (full appearance) ::It looks strange, at least on the computer I usually edit from, as the mention is in a smaller/compacted text and the full appearance is standard. There is a template, 1st, which creates a in the same text style as the mention, so I was wondering about going through and changing the (full appearance) to a or creating a template that would have the (full appearance) in the same style. As for the DL and FoL worksheets, I've loaned my copy of Dancer's Lament to a friend at the moment, and I don't yet own Fall of Light. I'll have it back before the moratorium ends, I'll add a couple characters I can work on right now. Marl Karx (talk) 21:53, December 15, 2016 (UTC) :::I should really follow through on things I start. Let us say that full appearances are assumed, hence there is no need to note this. Where a character is mentioned a special note, in this case the template , is used. So far, so good. Sometimes characters are mentioned first and then later make a full appearance, in this case then remove the mentioned only note as it contradicts the later statement of "full appearance". :::I'm interested in the problems you are having with inserting templates. (I take it you are using the default skin (see ).) Leave some more details (e.g. browser you use, what you click on that causes the crash) on my talk page if you want some help troubleshooting it. -- 07:19, December 16, 2016 (UTC) ::::Jade Raven, many of the DPs that are currently fully referenced use the dual system of 'mentioned only' plus 'full appearance' where applicable. Given the amount of work that various editors have put into that, I don't think it would be fair to just erase them. As references should always accompany both entries, they can not be classed as a contradiction. Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 15:51, December 16, 2016 (UTC) :::::Since I had been working based on what I saw on the GM ExtDP, I had assumed that a character mentioned in, for example, chapter 3, then appearing in chapter 6, would have a (Mo) referenced to 3 and a (full appearance) referenced to 6. As for the (Mo) glitch, it only happens on my talk page as far as I know, and only on the portable computer I usually work from. I can insert it perfectly fine in the DP and on my other computer, but here the browser stops responding. And I'm not clicking to insert, I just type the {s and Mo out myself. After typing the "M" and if I'm lucky the o after the first two brackets it stops responding. Again, it works perfectly on the DPs, no hesitation. As for browser I'm running Internet Explorer (I know, I should probably use Chrome) on my portable computer and Microsoft Edge on the other. It might work to insert it here on Monobook, but I just found out I can't yesterday and I haven't had much time to try. Marl Karx (talk) Edit: typing out the Endspoiler template also crashed it but clicking it from the "more" section worked fine. I don't know why it's an issue just on this page, I can type the Endpsoiler on other pages fine, and it worked just a couple weeks ago when I added the Spoiler template to the DL and FL section. Marl Karx (talk) 16:25, December 16, 2016 (UTC) ::::::Try typing both opening and closing bracket first, then insert name of link. Might just be trouble with the auto-prompt functionEgwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 16:29, December 16, 2016 (UTC) That works, thanks! I guess sometimes the simplest solutions are the most effective. I'm going to start sliding the conversation back to the left here before we're halfway across the page. Marl Karx (talk) 16:35, December 16, 2016 (UTC) :Slides to the left.... hmmm... waltz rhythm maybe? Glad I could help. I recognised the symptoms as I get the same problem on some pages. The auto-prompt can be really annoying sometimes. When I am trying to change the advent calendar image for example, it displays right over where I am typing. Still, the overall plus points far outweigh those few hick-ups!Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 16:49, December 16, 2016 (UTC) ::Only just realised that with the revamp the meaning of the words in the intro to the DPs has changed. The intro as it currently reads does contradict what we have actually been doing. I'll change the working to reflect the content. Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 18:47, December 16, 2016 (UTC) :::Good thing you noticed, it's a lot easier to change the DP template than to change every DP. Back to the original question though, should I go through and swap out (full appearances) for or create a template for a (full appearance) of the same font? The conversation went off on a tangent for a bit. Also, I noticed you changed the K'rul page to have a "show spoiler" button, if it would be helpful I could try to put that button on some other articles, ex. Cotillion. Marl Karx (talk) 22:19, December 16, 2016 (UTC) ::::It's times like these that I'm reminded that I'm the only one around here that seems to spend a bit of time on other wikis. The established standard for talk pages is increment an indent by one until it gets too unwieldy (3-5 I'd say) and then start it back at zero and increment out again. -- 23:58, December 16, 2016 (UTC) The amount of work that has been put in was the only thing that made me hesitate about deleting them across all the DPs—I still want to do it though. It doesn't really add anything to the wiki. There is a bit of significance as to whether a character is just mentioned in a book or actually shows up and maybe has a bit of dialogue, but to say that they are mentioned and then say that they make a full appearance makes a mockery of this. It is purely an unnecessary vestige of the process of systematically going through a book and noting and referencing a character as you come across them. Later finding a full appearance invalidates the former work done on the mention, but there is a reluctance to discard it because of the effort it took. I understand the feeling of wanting to keep it, but it doesn't mean the decision is a good one. Referencing just for its own sake does not strike me as particularly wise. -- 00:38, December 17, 2016 (UTC) :I highly recommend that no-one uses Internet Explorer for any reason. -- 00:38, December 17, 2016 (UTC) ::It could help if more information needs to be added later, simply including the first appearance might neglect information about that character exposed before, and it makes it easy to know what chapter the character first appears in instead of having to flip through and make sure they are not mentioned before an appearance. It would also be useful if we ever wanted to catalog, chronologically, the order in which characters' names appear in the books. As it is sort of part of the process of creating a DP to mark the first mention, I don't see why to waste time removing the name afterwards. It doesn't seem vital to include but it seems like a waste of time to go back through and delete when it could be used otherwise and it will probably be created anyways initially to mark appearances. I don't see the point of removing them later when, even if they appear useless, they don't do any harm to the wiki and add to the details. The two uses I thought of were just off the top of my head, I'm sure knowing the initial chapter a character's name appears in could be helpful in other ways. Marl Karx (talk) 01:54, December 17, 2016 (UTC) :::I disagree. The information is of extremely marginal utility and is not worth the bloat that it brings to the DPs. Moreover, I want to return to the simple contradiction of the statements: "mentioned only" and "full appearance" directly contradict each other. "Mentioned only" implies that a full appearance does not occur. How also to indicate the other entries, I assume every single entry that is currently unmarked will have "full appearance" added to it. I have thought this though. I would be quite happy to do the work of removing the unnecessary references. -- 03:58, December 17, 2016 (UTC) ::::If we're talking about useless bloat then I feel like adding (full appearance) to every single entry that is not mentioned only is a monumental waste of time. I disagree that such a contradiction exists as the (mentioned only) to me implies that up until the full appearance they are only mentioned and from the appearance onward they are active, or that in the cited chapter for the "Mo" they are only mentioned and in the cited chapter for the "full appearance" they have a complete appearance. However, this could be easily fixed by changing the Mo template to simply say "mentioned", which if I am correct would alter all the DPs and eliminate the contradiction the "only" seems to cause, and creating a new function for "mentioned only" to add to characters who are only mentioned, which would take far less time as there appear to be less of these. Also, why add "full appearance" to every character when we could simple alter the DP template at the top to mentioned that characters not marked as mentioned only/characters with only a citation appear fully from the first point their name is used? That would save so much time. As long as the "mentioned only" and "full appearance" don't take the character into a second line, I don't see how it bloats the DPs, the page will still be of the same length. Marl Karx (talk) 05:13, December 17, 2016 (UTC) :::::Dropping the "only" would seem to be a solution, but then every single character is technically mentioned and thus it applies to every entry and becomes useless as an identifier. I highly value consistency and logical organisation and presentation of information and would rather personally add a "full appearance" to every entry than add a caveat to the template at the top. Of course the most logical thing is to not to have full appearance notes at all as the simplest assumption is that every appearance is a full appearance unless otherwise noted. The more instructions that are required, the greater the design failure is. Bloat does not necessarily mean large, it just means larger than it needs to be. -- 11:05, December 17, 2016 (UTC) If we keep going down this route, then I have to ask why we are bothering to footnote anything in the DP at all. Who cares that Whiskeyjack first showed up in Chapter 2 before continuing to appear in the rest of the book? Part of the problem is that the definition of the Extended DP seems to have suddenly changed. At first we had the DP on the main book page as an artifact of the book (like a map or acknowledgement). It was the official character list provided by the publisher/author to inform the reader who appeared in the book. In my mind, the extended DP was a deep cut side project to expand the list for completionists and include extra-nerdy details like chapter of first reference and/or appearance. It's only if we've now swapped one for the other that the presentation of the old ExtDP can seem like bloat. A decision needs to be made on role of these pages before anyone wastes more time on them.--ArchieVist (talk) 17:27, December 17, 2016 (UTC) :I fully agree with what AV is saying. The mission statement for the EDPs was quite markedly different from that of the book DPs - they were on opposite ends of a spectrum. Since removal, I use book/kindle to look up who was listed under what category in the original book DP. Every user differs in what info they come to find on the Wiki and I would prefer us to cater for the broadest user base possible. I really can not see there being a contradiction between the two types of appearances. The very reason for choosing those two expressions is that they are self-explanatory. I would prefer to stick with 'mentioned only' template and 'full appearance' in their current form.Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 19:03, December 17, 2016 (UTC) ::Egwene I would like you to imagine that not everyone checks and reads the references. Thus if you read: "Anomander Rake ref: Gardens of the Moon, Chapter 1 (full appearance) ref: Gardens of the Moon, Chapter 2" it does sort of make sense, but if you read it as: "Anomander Rake (full appearance)", it makes a lot less sense. -- 22:53, December 17, 2016 (UTC) :::Would it be possible, although likely highly complicated, to hide all of the and (full appearance) text, and then have a button at the top of the DP that would display it for those who wished to see? This would allow us to use the information, and people who wish to see the info could see it without it filling the page to excess. It would probably be a lot of work, but it would create a perfect middle ground between too much information displayed and not having the information at hand when we need it. If there is some simple text that could be inserted to each side of the - (full appearance) to hide them, all linked to a central button, I could go through the DP pages and insert it. Again, it would take a little while though. Marl Karx (talk) 23:09, December 17, 2016 (UTC) ::::I've copied the button from the K'rul page used to hide pseudonyms and applied it to the Anomander Rake DP bullet. Original: ::::* Anomander Rake, Lord of Moon's Spawn, Son of Darkness, Knight of Darkness 1 (full appearance)2 ::::Modified: Click to show more information ::::* Anomander Rake, Lord of Moon's Spawn, Son of Darkness, Knight of Darkness2 1 (full appearance)2 ::::I don't know much about how this works so I don't know how to create 1 button for multiple hidden items or how to have the and such on the same line, I just directly copied from the K'rul page and changed some words..Pcwrcw replaced inactive footnote numbers with superscript #s to get rid of the distracting error messages in the Notes & Reference section Marl Karx (talk) 23:24, December 17, 2016 (UTC) :::::That would be possible, but I would rather we left things as they are now than do that. -- 23:52, December 17, 2016 (UTC) Background on chapterboxes I long time ago I realised that the main book pages were heading towards a truly extraordinary length. There was way too much info on them. However the information was useful so I decided to break it out into several sub-pages. For the purpose of keeping everything linked together I created the chapterboxes. Now every chapter, prologue and epilogue gets its own page. I also wanted to get the dramatis personae onto its own page as well, as it was complicating the contents section and took a big chunk of scroll time to get past. The meat of the book pages is supposed to be the plot summaries. The problem came when I was lax in removing the old DPs as I copied them over to their own pages (hope I'm remembering this bit correctly). Soon others (Egwene and Aimzzz I think) made the DP pages into Extended DPs which I thought was actually a great idea, but now the originals were different so I held off deleting them. But really, what purpose do the replica DPs of the books serve when there is a far more extensive listing available? (That's an honest question by the way.) A few weeks ago I finally decided to just bypass consultation and I carried out a purge of the book replica DPs and attempted to rewrite history to make it appear that they had never existed (a futile task on a wiki). This was a rash move, but then is not the first rule of wikis: "be bold in editing" and why the three-revert-rule exists? Now we are discussing it after the fact. Let us all lay out our various arguments to our satisfaction and then if there is still not consensus we can vote on it. -- 23:49, December 17, 2016 (UTC) :The EDPs were my idea because I wanted a complete listing of all characters appearing within each book. I considered removing the original DPs at that point, however, thinking it through I came to the conclusion that the original DPs still served a function as they record who is listed under which header and with whom, information that can only be extracted from the EDP with a great deal of analysis but not at a glance. Probably more importantly, I also considered that the main book page is spoiler friendly whereas the DP is not. New readers were still able to make use of the original DP whilst browsing whereas now they really should avoid the DP until they have finished the book. As for the footnotes... I totally assume that the majority of refs do not get read, ever. There main purpose is that they 'can' be read', i.e. if anyone wants to verify the accuracy of the Wiki entries, they can do so. Refs are a must for the Wiki if we want to be a classed as more than a collection of rumours. The referencing of the DPs is an ongoing project and currently some may not have the actual refs attached yet. The end product however, will have a ref number attached to each MO and FA bracket thus pretty strongly indicating to the user that they are two separate occurrences. I would say that the distinction should only be made if the differing appearance are not within the same chapter and that those characters who do not get a MO bracket only need the ref number not a FA bracket as well. Regardless of what we decide, any policy would be explained in the intro in any case and thus readers should know what they are looking at. Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 09:25, December 18, 2016 (UTC) Some invalid assumptions about Book DPs In some parts of this discussion, there seem to be at least two underlying assumptions about the DPs, as actually found in the books that are not valid: :1. That all important characters are actually listed in a book’s DP. ::For example, however, the DP of “The Bonehunters”, as printed in the book, does not list ‘Cotillion’, ‘Shadowthrone’ or ‘Ganoes Paran’ (to name just three), who, in fact, not only appear in tBH, but who also have major roles (both in content and in extent) in it. If readers go solely by the book’s DP, they could easily conclude that they do not even appear. Also, the first actual appearance of ‘Ruthan Gudd’ and the last actual appearance of ‘Dujek Onearm’ in the Malazan books could also easily be overlooked, because they are not mentioned in tBH DP as printed in the book either. Even if readers know that these last two do appear in the book, without the BH ‘Ext’ DP, they would not know even the chapters in which to look for them. :2. That information given in a book’s DP is, by definition, to be trusted. ::One has only to check the ERRATA (to be found at the end of the ‘Ext’ DP of “The Crippled God”) to see how far astray readers can be led by depending solely on a book’s printed DP. Pcwrcw (talk) 01:10, December 18, 2016 (UTC) Notes and References